Alvar is much more unfair to Mohammed than his friend Eulogius, and he even seems to have had a prejudiced idea[1] that the Prophet set himself deliberately to preach doctrines the opposite of those taught by Christ. It would be nearer to the truth to say that the divergence between the two codes of morals was due to the natural ignorance of an illiterate Arabian, brought into contact only with an heretical form of Christianity, the real doctrines of which he was therefore not likely to know.

According to Alvar, the sixth day of the week was chosen for the Mohammedan holy day, because Christ suffered on that day. We shall realise the absurdity of this when we consider the reverence in which Mohammed held the very name of Christ, going so far even as to deny that Christ Himself was crucified at all.[2] The true reason for selecting Friday, as alleged by Mohammed himself, was, because the work of creation ended on that day.[3]

Again, sensuality was preached, says Alvar, because Christ preached chastity. But Mohammed cannot fairly be said to have preached sensuality, though his private life in this respect was by no means pure.

Gluttony was advocated instead of fasting. A more baseless charge was never made; for how can it be contended that Christianity enjoins fasting, while Islam disapproves of it, in the face of such texts as Matthew ix. 14,[4] and Isaiah lviii. 6—"Is not this the fast that I have chosen? To loose the bands of wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens, and to let the oppressed go free?" on the one hand; and on the other the express injunction of the Koran[5]:—"O true believers, a fast is ordained you, as it was ordained to those before you ... if ye fast, it will be better for you, if ye knew it. The month of Ramadan shall ye fast." But Alvar goes on to make a more astonishing statement still:—"Christ ordained that men should abstain from their wives during a fast, while Mohammed consecrated those days to carnal pleasure." Christ surely gives us no such injunction, though St Paul does say something of the kind. The Koran[6] explicitly says—"It is lawful for you on the night of the fast to go in unto your wives; they are a garment unto you, and you are a garment unto them." We even find an incident recorded by an Arabian writer, where Yahya ibn Yahya, the famous faqui, imposed a penance of a month's extra fast on Abdurrahman II. (822-852) for violating the Prophet's ordinance, that wives should be abstained from during the fasting month.[7] Alvar, being a layman, may perhaps be supposed not to have studied Mohammedanism critically, and that his zeal was not according to knowledge is perhaps the best explanation of the matter. In one place[8] he informs us of his intention of writing a book on the Cobar,[9] but the work, if ever written, has not survived. Nor is this much to be regretted, if we may judge by the wild remarks he indulges in elsewhere[10] on this theme. In that passage he seems to apply the obscure prophecy of Daniel[11] to Mohammed, forgetting that verse 37 speaks of one who "shall regard not the desire of women," a description hardly characteristic of Mohammed. He identifies the God Maozim (Hebr. Mauzim), which our revised version (v. 38) translates the "God of fortresses" with the Mohammedan Cobar;[12] and the strange god, whom he shall acknowledge, Alvar identifies with the devil which inspired the Prophet in the guise of the angel Gabriel. All this, as the writer himself allows, is very enigmatical.

Alvar does not scruple even to accuse the Moslems of idolatry, asserting that the Arabian tribes worship their idol (the Caaba black stone[1]) as they used to do of yore, and that they set apart a holy month, Al Mozem, in honour of this idol.[2]

Finally, Mohammed is spoken of variously as the precursor of Antichrist,[3] or as Antichrist himself.[4]

Let us now see how far we can gather the opinions of educated Moslems with regard to Christian doctrine and worship. If we find these to be no less one-sided and erroneous than the opinions of Christians as to Mohammedanism, yet can we the more easily excuse the Moslems, for the Koran itself, the very foundation and guide of all their religious dogmas, is full of incorrect and inconsistent notions on the subject.

The most important of these mistakes was that the Christians worshipped a Trinity of Deities—God, Christ, Mary.[5] The inclusion of the Virgin Mary into this Trinity was perhaps due to the fact that worship was paid to her even at that early date, as it certainly is among the Roman Catholics at this day. As will have been seen from a passage quoted above,[6] something very like adoration was already paid to the Virgin in the churches of Spain.

But the following extract from a treatise on Religions, by Ali ibn Hazm,[1] the prime minister of Abdurrahman V. (Dec. 1023-March 1024), will show that some educated Moslems knew enough of the Christian creed to appreciate its difficulties:—"We need not be astonished," says Ibn Hazm, "at the superstition of men. Look at the Christians! They are so numerous that God only knows their numbers. They have among them men of great intelligence, and princes of great ability. Nevertheless they believe that three is one, and one is three; that one of the three is the Father, another the Son, another the Spirit; that the Father is, and is not, the Son; that a man is, and is not, God; that the Messiah is God in every respect, and yet not the same as God; that He who has existed from all eternity has been created.

"One of their sects, the members of which they call Jacobites, and which number hundreds of thousands, believes even that the Creator Himself was scourged, crucified, and put to death; so that the Universe for three days was deprived of its Governor."

Another extract from an Arabic writer will show us what the Moslems thought of the worship of St James, the patron saint of Spain, round whose shrine rallied the religious revival in the north of the Peninsula. It is Ibn Hayyan,[2] who, in his account of Almanzor's fiftieth expedition against the Christians, says:—"Shant Yakoh (Santiago)[3] is one of the sanctuaries most frequented, not only by the Christians of Andalus, but of the neighbouring continent, who look upon its church with a veneration such as Moslems entertain for the Caaba of Mecca; for their Caaba is a colossal idol (statue) which stands in the middle of the church. They swear by it, and repair to it in pilgrimage from the most distant parts, from Rome, as well as other countries beyond Rome, pretending that the tomb to be seen in the church is that of Yakob (James), one of the twelve apostles, and the most beloved by Isa (Jesus).—May the blessing of God be on him, and on our Prophet!—The Christians call this Yakob the brother of Jesus, because, while he lived, he was always with him. They say that he was Bishop of Jerusalem, and that he wandered over the earth preaching the religion [of Christ], and calling upon the inhabitants to embrace it, till he came to that remote corner of Andalus; that he then returned to Syria, where he died at the age of 120 solar years. They pretend likewise that, after the death of Yakob, his disciples carried his body and buried it in that church, as the most remote part, where he had left traces [of his preaching]."

In a country where literature and the arts were so keenly cultivated, as they were in Spain during the time of Arab domination, and where the rivalry of Christian, Jew, and Moslem produced a sustained period of intellectual activity such as the world has rarely seen, controversial theology could not fail to have been largely developed. But the books, if any were written, from the Christian or Moslem standpoint, have all perished, and we have only such slight and unsatisfactory notices left to us as those already quoted.

In estimating, therefore, what influences the rival religions of Spain had upon each other, we are driven to draw such inferences as we can from the meagre hints furnished to us by the writers of the period; from our knowledge of what Christianity was in Spain, and Mohammedanism in Africa, before they were brought into contact in Andalusia, compared with what they became after that contact had made itself felt; and from the observed effects of such relations elsewhere. Upon a careful consideration of these scattered hints we shall see that certain effects were visible, which, had the amalgamation of the two peoples been allowed to continue uninterruptedly for a longer period, and had there been no disturbing element in the north of Spain and in Africa, would in all probability have led to some marked modification in one or both religions, and even to their nearer assimilation.

CHAPTER IX.

HERESIES IN SPAIN.

Such mixtures of religions are by no means without example in history. The Sabians, for instance, were the followers of a religion, which may have been a cross between Judaism, Christianity, and Magianism.[1] But Mohammedanism itself has furnished the most marked instances of such amalgamation. In Persia Islam combined with the creed of Zoroaster to produce Babyism; while in India Hinduism and Mohammedanism, fused together by the genius of Nanak Guru, have resulted in Sikhism.

It may be said that Mohammedanism has been able to unite with Zoroastrianism and Hinduism owing to their very dissimilarity with itself, whereas Christianity is too near akin to Islam to combine with it in such a way as to produce a religion like both, and yet different from either.[2] Christianity and Mohammedanism, each have two cardinal doctrines (and two only) which cannot be abrogated if they are to remain distinctive creeds. In one of these, the unity of God, they agree. In the other they do, and always must, differ. The divinity of Christ on the one side, and the divine mission of Mohammed on the other, are totally incompatible doctrines. If the one is true, the other cannot be so. Surrender both, and the result is Judaism. No compromise would seem possible. Yet a compromise was attempted, if we can credit a statement attributed by Dozy to Ibn Khaldun,[3] in recounting the history of the successful rebel, Abdurrahman ibn Merwan ibn Yunas, who during the last quarter of the ninth century, while all Moslem Spain was a prey to the wildest anarchy, became a leader of the renegade or Muwallad party in Merida and the neighbourhood. Thinking to unite the Muwallads and Christians in one revolt, he preached to his countrymen a new religion, which held a place halfway between Christianity and Islam. This is all we are told of an endeavour, which might have led to the most important consequences. That we hear no more of it is evidence enough that the attempt proved abortive. The only other attempt, if it can be called so, to combine Islam and Christianity has resulted in that curious compound called the religion of the Druses.

But though no religion, holding a position midway between Islam and Christianity, arose in Spain, yet those religions could hardly fail to undergo considerable modifications in themselves by reason of their close contact for several centuries.

In respect to Christianity we shall naturally find the traces (if any) of such modification in the so-called heresies which may have arisen in Spain during this period. These will require a somewhat strict examination to be made to yield up their secret.

The Church of Spain seems to have gained a reputation for introducing innovations[1] into the doctrines and practices of the true faith, and even of priding itself on its ingenuity in this way. The very first Council whose acts have come down to us, held at Elvira in Spain, early in the fourth century, contains a canon censuring the use of pictures. The very first heretics, who were punished for their error with death by the hands of their fellow-Christians, were reared in the bosom of the Spanish Church. The doctrine, novel then, but accepted now by all the Western Churches, of the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son as well as from the Father, was first formulated in a Spanish Council at the end of the sixth century, but not universally received in the West until 600 years later.[2] And as we have seen, the use of pictures was denounced long before the times of the Iconoclasts.

We will now take in order the several heresies that made themselves noticeable in Spain, or Gothic Gaul, during the Arab supremacy, and see if we can trace any relation between them and the Moslem faith.

To take an unimportant one first, a heresy is mentioned as having arisen in Septimania (Gothic Gaul), presumably during the eighth century.[3] It was more practical than speculative, and consisted in a denial of the need of confession to a priest, on the (unimpeachable) ground that men ought to confess to God alone. This appears to us Protestants a wholly laudable and reasonable contention; but not so to the worthy abbé who records it: cette doctrine, si favorable à libertinage, trouva un grand nombre de partisans, et excite encore le zèle d'Alcuin.[4]

That this error was due in any sense to the influence of the Arabs in the neighbouring territories of Spain, it is of course impossible to affirm, but at all events the reform was quite in the spirit of the verses of the Koran: "O ye who have received[1] the Scripture come to a just determination between us and you, that we worship not any except God, and associate no creature with Him: and that the one of us take not the other for lords, beside God." And "They take their priests and monks for their lords besides God."[2]

Let us next consider an heretical view of the Trinity attributed to Migetius (circa 750). According to the rather obscure account, which has come down to us,[1] he seems to have regarded the Three Persons of the Trinity, at least in their relations with the world, as corporeal, the Father being personified in David, the Son in Jesus, and the Holy Ghost in Paul. It is difficult to believe that the doctrine, thus crudely stated by Elipandus, was really held by anyone. We may perhaps infer[2] that Migetius revived the error of Priscillian (itself a form of Sabellianism), and reducing the Three Persons of the Trinity to one, acknowledged certain ένεργειαι or powers, emanating from Him, which were manifested in David, Jesus, Paul respectively. As the first and last of these three recipients of the Divine powers were confessedly men, it follows that Migetius was ready to strip Jesus of that Divinity, which is the cardinal doctrine of Christianity, and which more than any other doctrine distinguishes it from the creed of Mohammed. Accordingly he appears to have actually denied the divinity of the Word,[3] and in this he made an approach to Mohammedanism.[4]

A similar, but seemingly not identical, error was propagated by those who, as we learn from a letter of Alvar to Speraindeo, did not believe the Three in One and One in Three, "denying the utterances of the prophets, rejecting the doctrine of learned men, and, while they claimed to take their stand upon the Gospel, pointing to texts like John xx. 17, 'I ascend unto my Father, and your Father, unto my God and your God,' to prove that Christ was merely man."[1] In his answer to Alvar's letter, Speraindeo says, "If we speak of the Trinity as one Person, we Judaize;" he might have added, "and Mohammedanize." These heretics, according to the abbot, spoke of three powers (virtutes) forming one Person, not, as the orthodox held, three Persons forming one God.[2] Here we see a close resemblance to the error mentioned in the preceding paragraph; but the heretics we are now dealing with make an even closer approach to the teaching of Mohammed in their quotation of John xx. 17 given above, as will be seen, if we compare with that text the following passages of the Koran, put into the mouth of Christ: "Verily, God is my Lord, and your Lord; therefore serve him:"[3] "They are surely infidels who say, verily, God is Christ, the Son of Mary, since Christ said, O children of Israel, serve God, my Lord and your Lord:"[4] and, "I have not spoken unto them any other than what thou didst command me—namely, worship God, my Lord and your Lord."[5]

We come next to the famous Adoptionist heresy, the most remarkable and original of those innovations to which Alcuin taunts the Spanish Church with being addicted. Unfortunately we derive little of our knowledge of the new doctrine from the originators and supporters of it—our information on the subject coming chiefly from passages quoted by their opponents (notably our own Alcuin) in controversial works. But that the heresy had an important connection with the Mohammedan religion has been the opinion of many eminent writers on Church history. Mariana, the Spanish historian, and Baronius, the apologist for the Roman Church, held that the object of the new heresiarchs was, "by lowering the character of Christ, to pave the way for a union between Christians and Mohammedans."[1] Enhueber,[2] also, in his treatise on this subject, quotes a tract, "De Primatu Ecclesiae Toletanae," which attributes the heresy to its author, Elipandus, being brought into so close a contact with the Saracens, and living on such friendly terms with them.[3]

Neander[4] thinks that there are some grounds for supposing that Felix, one of the authors of the heresy, had been employed in defending Christianity against objections brought against it from the Moslem standpoint,[5] and in proving the divinity of Christ, so that they might be induced to accept it. Felix, therefore, may have been led to embrace this particular doctrine, called Adoptionism, from a wish to bring the Christian view of Christ nearer to the Mohammedan opinion.

There is considerable doubt as to who first broached the new theory, the evidence being of a conflicting character, and pointing now to Elipandus, bishop of Toledo and primate of all Spain, now to Felix, bishop of Urgel, in Catalonia.[6]

The claims of Felix[1] are supported by Eginhard,[2] Saxo, and Jonas of Orleans; while Paulinus of Aquileia, in his book entitled "Sacrosyllabus," expressly calls Elipandus the author of the baneful heresy; and Alcuin, in his letter to Leidrad,[3] says that he is convinced that Elipandus, as he was the first in rank, so also was the chief offender.

The evidence being inconclusive, we are driven to follow à priori considerations, and these point to Elipandus as the author. According to Neander,[4] he was a violent, excitable, bigoted man; and he certainly uses some very strong language in his writings against his opponents, and stands a good deal on his dignity as head of the Spanish Church. For instance, speaking of his accusers, Etherius, Bishop of Osma, and Beatus,[5] a priest of Libana, he says of the former that he wallows in the mire of all lasciviousness;[6] that he is totally unfit to officiate at God's altar;[7] that he is a false prophet[8] and a heretic; and, forgetting the courtesies of controversy, he doesn't hesitate, in another place, to call him an ass. Beatus also he accuses of gross sensuality, and calls him that iniquitous priest of Astorga,[9] accusing him of heresy, and giving him the title Antiphrasius, which means that instead of being called Beatus, he should have been named the very opposite.[10]